In-Plane Seismic Behavior of Brick Masonry Walls Reinforced with Twisted Steel Bars and Conventional Steel Bars
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1) Line 130 says 90 days, while Table 2 says 128 days. Correction in either is needed.
2) Line 159 says "...28 and days," should read "28 and 90 days,"
3) In Figure 8 (dotted line ...) should be in UR-03 (green line)
4) Line 549 “… some increase in….”
5) The reinforcements tested are intended for "traditional Lisbon buildings"? Some photos of such buildings would enhance the paper. Important to compare the actual wall sizes to the small wallettes (86 cm) used in the tests. The background and the conclusions should address the applicability of the research to real walls.
6) Can such "traditional Lisbon buildings" walls be really reinforced by cutting deep slots? Can the real wall surfaces remain without mortar covering or painting? The conclusions should address the real objective of the research. If not, the research would be only academic without future in actual traditional buildings.
Author Response
|
|
Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
Response |
|
1 |
Line 130 says 90 days, while Table 2 says 128 days. Correction in either is needed. |
Implemented |
|
2 |
Line 159 says "...28 and days," should read "28 and 90 days," |
Implemented |
|
3 |
In Figure 8 (dotted line ...) should be in UR-03 (green line) |
Implemented |
|
4 |
Line 549 “… some increase in….” |
Implemented |
|
5 |
The reinforcements tested are intended for "traditional Lisbon buildings"? Some photos of such buildings would enhance the paper. Important to compare the actual wall sizes to the small wallettes (86 cm) used in the tests. The background and the conclusions should address the applicability of the research to real walls. |
Implemented |
|
6 |
Can such "traditional Lisbon buildings" walls be really reinforced by cutting deep slots? Can the real wall surfaces remain without mortar covering or painting? The conclusions should address the real objective of the research. If not, the research would be only academic without future in actual traditional buildings. |
Implemented |
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
thank you for the interesting research. The topic is in the scope of the journal. The manuscript deals with the very interesting topic of reinforcing existing masonry buildings. The topic is of high interest to Southern Europeans where earthquake is most dominant force on structures. The countries like Albania, Italy, Croatia and Greece were recently struck by devastating earthquakes and the same problems in a strengthening of cultural heritage structures were important. Here are my remarks:
- The title and abstract are appropriate
- English needs some polishing but more or less it’s appropriate. There are some strange sentences like the sentence in lines 30-31 but the manuscript is written in proper English
- Formatting is not fully respected. In example, captions of Figures are wrong. Sometimes there is too much spae between lines (i.e. 168-176)
- Line 36: Many recent earthquakes …when subjected to recent earthquakes. It would be good if you provide references. Here are some proposals: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.104803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102140,
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/14/5/1127
Of course, the provided literature is not mandatory.
- Line 71: [6-11]. Please have a longer overview of reinforcement and strengthening of masonry walls. For example, FRCM, FRP, shotcrete are not mentioned but are the most commonly used in the retrofitting of masonry.
- Line 92 76×76×25 cm, not cm3
- Figure 5. Can you please also provide a photo of the specimens with a loading setup
- Can you provide load protocols? They are mentioned in a form of a norm, but can you provide it also as a graph?
- What are the MoE and strengths of a brick?
- Table 7 – MoE seems quite high. Can you explain why?
- Figure 16: Can you give more explanations about the drop in modulus of rigidity?
- I like the paper and the research. My main objection is that this setup with high mortar quality is not actually a good representation of existing masonry. Like you said in the line 559-564, masonry with weaker and softer mortars will have better improvements with a such reinforcement. Please highlight this fact in the introduction part.
- Numerical modelling – can you explain how did you define mortar if you did it? How did you define shear strength?
- References – why would you use BS norms and not Portuguese? I propose removing the BS before the EN and citing the norm on European level.
Author Response
|
|
Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
Response |
|
1 |
The title and abstract are appropriate |
Implemented |
|
2 |
English needs some polishing but more or less it’s appropriate. There are some strange sentences like the sentence in lines 30-31 but the manuscript is written in proper English |
Implemented |
|
3 |
Formatting is not fully respected. In example, captions of Figures are wrong. Sometimes there is too much space between lines (i.e. 168-176) |
Implemented |
|
4 |
Line 36: Many recent earthquakes …when subjected to recent earthquakes. It would be good if you provide references. Here are some proposals: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.104803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102140, https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/14/5/1127 |
References added |
|
5 |
Line 71: [6-11]. Please have a longer overview of reinforcement and strengthening of masonry walls. For example, FRCM, FRP, shotcrete are not mentioned but are the most commonly used in the retrofitting of masonry. |
Implemented |
|
6 |
Line 92 76×76×25 cm, not cm3 |
Implemented |
|
7 |
Figure 5. Can you please also provide a photo of the specimens with a loading setup |
Implemented |
|
8 |
Can you provide load protocols? They are mentioned in a form of a norm, but can you provide it also as a graph? |
The load rate applied during the axial compression test is 0.96 N/(mm2.min) as per the norm. The load rate applied during the diagonal compression test is 0.16 N/(mm2.min) as per the norm. |
|
9 |
What are the MoE and strengths of a brick? |
Implemented (Table 1) |
|
10 |
Table 7 – MoE seems quite high. Can you explain why? |
The bedding mortar has a high modulus of elasticity [28-day Dynamic MoE: 15794 MPa (601) – Table 2] and the brick a value of 10884MPa (2489) |
|
11 |
Figure 16: Can you give more explanations about the drop in modulus of rigidity? |
Implemented (Lines 459-463) |
|
12 |
I like the paper and the research. My main objection is that this setup with high mortar quality is not actually a good representation of existing masonry. Like you said in the line 559-564, masonry with weaker and softer mortars will have better improvements with a such reinforcement. Please highlight this fact in the introduction part. |
The mortar used in this study is prepared according to the ratio of the mortar used in a real building at the city center of Lisbon (Lines 116-118). It is expected that buildings built at the same period to have had the same mortar composition. The construction time points to the presence or not of Portland cement in the mortars. In more recent buildings it was common to use mortars with Portland cement. |
|
13 |
Numerical modelling – can you explain how did you define mortar if you did it? How did you define shear strength? |
It is a homogenized model using masonry as a homogeneous material. (Line 490-491) |
|
14 |
References – why would you use BS norms and not Portuguese? I propose removing the BS before the EN and citing the norm on European level. |
Implemented |
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript presents research in-plane seismic performance of old unreinforced brick masonry walls strengthened with stainless-steel twisted bars and conventional steel bars.
The manuscript contains errors that need to be corrected.
Below, the authors will find some of my suggestions that should be corrected in the manuscript:
- Line 98
In this verse there is a reference to Figure 1, but Figure 1 is shown 3 pages later.
I propose to move Figure 1 above in the text. The description of the prepared walls can be found on lines 92-100, which also suggests a change of location Figure 1.
Or please edit the text and do not make reference to Figure 1. - I have doubts as to the correctness of the word "wallettes" used in my work. Please verify this ...
- Line 92, 93, 129 and others
Please correct the notation of square and cubic units, e.g. from mm3 to mm3 - Lines 129 - 131
"Nine specimens of 160 x 40 x 40 mm3 were tested at 28, 90, and 180 days age. (...) tests are summarized in Table 2"
In contrast, Table 2 shows the tests for 28, 128 and 180 days. - Table 2
Table 2 should also include standard deviations of the results. This can be done in brackets next to the main values. - 2.1.3. Reinforcing bar properties
In section"2.1.3. Reinforcing bar properties" the use of bars (TSB Φ6) in 4 walls is described, which indicates 4 samples of tested bars.
However, table 4 shows the results for only 3 samples ?? - Lines 147-148
"The TSBs used has a nominal diameter of 6mm and the tensile strength parameters provided by the manufacturer (Helifix) and presented in Table 4."
Where, then, are the data for the SB Φ12 members?
Is it also manufacturer's data or own research? - Table 4
The calculated mean value "Density" for TSB Φ6 samples is not correct - Lines 153 - 155
"(...) compressive strength at 28 and days, whose results are presented in Table 5".
Data is missing in the text...
Table 5 shows the test results after 28 and 90 days. - Table 5 How many samples were tested?
Please provide standard deviations of the results. - 2.2. Masonry wallettes fabrication
What was the reason for the difference in dimensions in the prepared walls? - Lines 169-175
Please remove blank lines - Lines 189-191
"Details on the reinforcement layout are provided in Table 1."
Incorrect reference to Table 1, it was more to Figure 3. - Line 224 "(...) other experimental works alike [8, 9, 17-27]."
Such a large amount of literature should not be referenced without citing the results of the work. - Line 225
Please correct "45o" - Line 477
"Figure 23 shows the adapted (...)"
Figure 23 does not exist ... - The sections "Experimental Test Results and Analysis" and "Conclusions" should be supported by references to the literature and the results of other researchers.
- No information in the manuscript for Author Contributions, Conflicts of Interest or Sample Availability ....
- References
Please prepare the literature in accordance with the journal guidelines !!!
Author Response
|
|
Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
Response |
|
1 |
Line 98 In this verse there is a reference to Figure 1, but Figure 1 is shown 3 pages later. I propose to move Figure 1 above in the text. The description of the prepared walls can be found on lines 92-100, which also suggests a change of location Figure 1. Or please edit the text and do not make reference to Figure 1. |
Reference to Figure 1 removed. |
|
2 |
I have doubts as to the correctness of the word "wallettes" used in my work. Please verify this ... |
A term used by scholars to refer to small sized wall specimens |
|
3 |
Line 92, 93, 129 and others Please correct the notation of square and cubic units, e.g. from mm3 to mm3 |
Implemented |
|
4 |
Lines 129 - 131 "Nine specimens of 160 x 40 x 40 mm3 were tested at 28, 90, and 180 days age. (...) tests are summarized in Table 2" In contrast, Table 2 shows the tests for 28, 128 and 180 days. |
Corrected accordingly |
|
5 |
Table 2 Table 2 should also include standard deviations of the results. This can be done in brackets next to the main values. |
Implemented |
|
6 |
2.1.3. Reinforcing bar properties In section"2.1.3. Reinforcing bar properties" the use of bars (TSB Φ6) in 4 walls is described, which indicates 4 samples of tested bars. However, table 4 shows the results for only 3 samples ?? |
Three specimens for each reinforcement bars (three of twisted steel bars and three for concrete reinforcing steel bars) were tested. Amended in the text to point to this fact (Lines 168-169) |
|
7 |
Lines 147-148 "The TSBs used has a nominal diameter of 6mm and the tensile strength parameters provided by the manufacturer (Helifix) and presented in Table 4." Where, then, are the data for the SB Φ12 members? Is it also manufacturer's data or own research? |
The data presented in Table 4 belong to our own test results. The text has been amended accordingly. (Lines 168-170) |
|
8 |
Table 4 The calculated mean value "Density" for TSB Φ6 samples is not correct |
Corrected accordingly |
|
9 |
Lines 153 - 155 "(...) compressive strength at 28 and days, whose results are presented in Table 5". Data is missing in the text... Table 5 shows the test results after 28 and 90 days. |
Corrected accordingly |
|
10 |
Table 5 How many samples were tested? Please provide standard deviations of the results. |
Three samples for each age were tested (modified in Line 176). After the submission of the manuscript the 180-day test results were out, we have included their results as well in Table 5 (last row) |
|
11 |
2.2. Masonry wallettes fabrication What was the reason for the difference in dimensions in the prepared walls? |
The test that Type 1 wallettes were subjected to was different from Type2-4 wallettes, hence there is no reason in having the same size. |
|
12 |
Lines 169-175 Please remove blank lines |
Implemented |
|
13 |
Lines 189-191 "Details on the reinforcement layout are provided in Table 1." Incorrect reference to Table 1, it was more to Figure 3. |
Corrected: “Details on the reinforcement layout are provided in Table 6.” |
|
14 |
Line 224 "(...) other experimental works alike [8, 9, 17-27]." Such a large amount of literature should not be referenced without citing the results of the work. |
A summarized table of other researchers’ results is added (Table 1: Line 83) |
|
15 |
Line 225 Please correct "45o" |
Corrected |
|
16 |
Line 477 "Figure 23 shows the adapted (...)" Figure 23 does not exist ... |
Corrected: “Figure 19 shows the adapted…” |
|
17 |
The sections "Experimental Test Results and Analysis" and "Conclusions" should be supported by references to the literature and the results of other researchers. |
We have not focused on the results of other works since most of them are about weak mortars. Given the fact that the walls subject to this study have stronger mortar we think it is not necessary to include the said references and results in those sections. However, we included a summarized table of some results of other researchers. |
|
18 |
No information in the manuscript for Author Contributions, Conflicts of Interest or Sample Availability .... |
Added (Line 614) |
|
19 |
References Please prepare the literature in accordance with the journal guidelines !!! |
Implemented |
